Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:06:13 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 13:16:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 29, 2001 at 10:56:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 29, 2001 at 04:01:32, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2001 at 03:39:53, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>It seems clear why it wasn't invited to participate: >>>> >>>>1) The organizer is going to use a multiprocessor machine. >>>>2) Fritz and Junior run on a multiprocessor machine. >>>>3) Tiger is known to not run on such a machine. >>>>4) Tiger is very strong, but if it is stronger than Junior or Fritz, it's >>>>probably not stronger by much. >>>>5) A multiprocessor machine should produce a significant performance boost. >>>>6) It is hoped that the event will produce an "accurate" winner. >>>> >>>>If you allow these points, you can make a case that Tiger on a single processor >>>>can't be stronger than Junior or Fritz on a multi. >>> >>>I understood that tiger can use more than one processor. >>> >> >> >>This is speculation. Ed/Christophe did two things wrong, _assuming_ they have >>an SMP tiger: >> >>1. Neither mentioned it _anywhere_. They chose to "keep it a secret" for >>some supposed "surprise value" at a tournament in the future; > > > >Isn't it our right to do so? > >What's next? Accusations that we keep our tournament books secret? No... But it is _incredibly_ stupid to (a) keep it secret then (b) complain when you aren't included because nobody knows you have an SMP program. Particularly when you have written _many_ posts about what a waste of time it is. Can we believe _anything_ you say in that light? Or do we have to try to figure out what you are saying with respect to politics and sales potential? Either say what you are doing, or else don't complain when someone doesn't know what you are doing. Can't have it both ways... > > > > >>2. Christophe has gone on record _several times_ saying SMP is not needed, it >>is the "wrong way" and so forth. > > > >I have said several times that I don't see SMP becoming the main stream in >computing, not even in chess computing. This is still my opinion. > >I said several times I had no plan to release a SMP version of Tiger. I did NOT >say I did not have one. I did NOT say I have never worked on SMP. > >I also said that I could change my mind if the market demands it. Last time I >said so was in a live interview on the CSS forum. Go to to this forum, go to the >page where the 16 hours interview has been reported, and you will find my words >about this. I'm not really interested in reading what someone says when they are trying to hide reality with semantics. I will tell you what I am doing, or what I think, or whatever. I will _not_ tell you half-truths, half-lies, lies that are true due to miniscule sematical issues, etc. > >It was BTW before I heard about the Kramnik match. > > > > >>They chose secrecy over openness, and now to complain is disingenuous to the >>max. BG is suppose to be able to read minds? > > > >Bob, as a supporter of the Deep Blue team, you certainly know a lot about the >secrecy around the IBM thing. > >And now you would blame me if I do the same? Nope.. be as secret as you want. But then don't complain when you are excluded from something because I don't know you are doing "it". That was my point. You can't have it both ways. Apparently Enrique was told to select SMP-only programs, due to the sponsor. Not knowing you had an SMP version, _how_ could he have selected you? And since you didn't tell him, how can you complain when he didn't know and select you? This sounds like "I am pissed because you didn't read my mind and include me..." > >So it's OK if IBM keeps informations secret, but if I do it it's not OK? IBM _never_ complained because someone didn't know what they had not told anybody about... > > > > > >>I have already stated my opinion about the qualifier previously. But not >>inviting RG (IMHO) is _not_ a point that should be argued. If the company >>chose to keep the product secret, they made a mistake as we now know. Too >>bad... > > > >No. > >The organizers have made a mistake. > >The challengers did not have to be commercial products. If so, Deep Blue would >not have been invited. > >So even if I do not have a commercial SMP version of Tiger, the organizers >should AT LEAST have asked us. Because participating with a commercial version, >clearly, is not required. That is semantical nonsense. Tiger is Tiger, whether it is the commercially released version or not. I asked about an SMP tiger a while back. You said "no way". If I had been in Enrique's place, should _I_ have asked you _again_ just to be sure that you weren't pulling my leg? Should _I_ have had to tell you that I _might_ be doing some sort of qualifier tournament for a big match? Or if I didn't, would you have responded with the truth? IE try this on for size: 1. I call you and ask "you got an SMP tiger that will run?" How will you answer? 2. I call you and ask "you got an SMP tiger that will run? I am going to run an event to qualify a program to play a super-GM with a lot of publicity. It has to be SMP. If you have one you are in." I claim that I ought to be able to ask _either_ of those questions, and use your answer to include/exclude you regardless. IE _MY_ sponsors might have asked me to keep it quiet for the moment. SO I couldn't tell _you_ why. And you would probably not answer me truthfully. But I am sure you would complain when you were "left out." Because _then_ you realize what kind of publicity was at stake... Secrecy _does_ have its price... > >Actually what they should have done is a PUBLIC announcement about the match, >they should have given all the required conditions to participate, and they >should have told chess programmers/companies that they could submit an >application form. > >That would have required some OPENESS from their side. > >Instead, all has been done in the dark, and as a result everybody has a bad >opinion of this match. > > > > > Christophe There are lots of bad opinions, yes. But 99% have nothing to do with a mythical SMP Tiger that didn't make it in.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.